Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It's not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

​

 

[mamba]

To be honest, I'm not 100% against all of it. I would expect to pay royalties to use one's IP. One can argue over the amount and tiers and penalties of lawsuits and such, but it is still their baby at the end of the day.

well, it was until they declared what part of it is available now under a perpetual and irrevocable OGL.

No one would say they are not in their rights to go back to a GSL 2.0, but killing the OGL was not a right they had, nor have today, this is simply strong-arming / bullying everyone into submission

 

[Sir Brennen]

Can we blame TSR3 for this somehow?

Seriously, did that whole debacle make Hasbro sit up and think "we need to put more protections on our D&D IP, make it more like our other games/licenses?"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"Blades II: Electric Boogaloo."

Are we absolutely 100% certain this isn't an elaborate troll? Because...wow.

We are 99.999% certain because WotC would have commented if this was a troll.

The only way it isn't troll is if WotC is currently experiencing a "Nakatomi Plaza"-type situation, and thus Hans Gruber has cut off all their communications. We must hope brave John McClane is able to defeat him before the evil hacker unlocks WotC's vaults and frees the 640 million in unmarked Magic the Gathering rares.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Can we blame TSR3 for this somehow?

Seriously, did that whole debacle make Hasbro sit up and think "we need to put more protections on our D&D IP, make it more like our other games/licenses?"

No. Because all the worst provisions have nothing to do with "protecting" the IP, and are 100% to do with controlling and shutting down competition, and destroying the concept of Open Gaming in commercial products entirely (and that latter is not an overstatement, they really are trying to take it out).

 

[Sir Brennen]

well, it was until they declared what part of it is available now under a perpetual and irrevocable OGL.

The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.

At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.

 

[Sir Brennen]

No. Because all the worst provisions have nothing to do with "protecting" the IP, and are 100% to do with controlling and shutting down competition, and destroying the concept of Open Gaming in commercial products entirely (and that latter is not an overstatement, they really are trying to take it out).

I think in many corporate minds "protecting" is synonymous with "controlling and shutting down competition"...

 

[wingsandsword]

To be honest, I'm not 100% against all of it. I would expect to pay royalties to use one's IP. One can argue over the amount and tiers and penalties of lawsuits and such, but it is still their baby at the end of the day.

For the 6th Edition they're calling "OneD&D" yes, I could expect new rules. After 4e, we were lucky they made 5e an OGL-released game (more or less).

To come along after 23 years and suddenly want royalties for using their IP in support of the games they've already released under the OGL (3e, 3.5e, d20 Modern, 5e) on only about a week's notice is a rather huge deal though, and something people shouldn't expect.

 

[Langy]

The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.

At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.

Other lawyers in those same threads strongly disagree with that take and seem to have the evidence to back it up, such as the GPL 2.0 lawsuit that has similar language (lacking the term 'irrevocable') but in court was deemed to be irrevocable anyways.

 

[Amrûnril]

See Griffon's Saddlebag's response.

Its not a draft, it had an attached contract to be signed by the 13th.

My understanding is that the attached contracts (which we haven't seen) are individual licensing agreements. The proposed OGL 1.1 is essentially a threat describing the terms WotC will attempt to force on those who don't sign individual agreements. It doesn't need to be in its fully polished, legalistic form to fulfil that purpose.

 

[mamba]

The word "irrevocable" isn't used in the OGL 1.0, and as a specific legal term, means it is very likely, in fact, to be revokable.

it does not need to include it, it says perpetual, it was common practice that this also meant irrevocable, there are even court rulings that agree

At least according to some of the actual lawyers in other threads and websites.

yeah, who cares, there are as many that tell you the opposite. I prefer to go with what the authors said they intended.